It simply won't happen until game consoles find a solution to having no mouse in FPS games. Yeah, the controler works to a point, but you certainly don't see people using their controlers on the PC instead of the mouse for a good reason, the mouse has much more freedom/speed/accuracy then the controler is capable of giving you.
You also will not see consoles beat out PC's until they add in ways to communicate with other people online that are simple and easy. We are close to that now, but not quite there yet.
Also also, you will not see consoles replace PC's in gaming for reasons of AI. Consoles are not designed to be able to handle code for AI. They are streamlined for handling FP operations and matrix operations, but can not run code which has code substitution, something that is required for AI to work (i.e. the code needs to make changes to its actions as it learns while playing against the player, and needs to substitute out its current "actions" (a function) for a different set of "actions" (a completely different function). In otherwords, it needs to be able to change its own code on the fly, which is NOT supported by current generation consoles or even the next generation consoles, but your PC could do this 15 years ago.
Each and every generation of consoles this same topic comes up by someone, and each time the articles are completely disproven. And why is that? Well here is the last reason that you didn't think about. This reason has to do with "BIG MONEY". Technology is always improving (at least at this moment in time). As such, as new things are coming out, those new things make it into PC's. Why, because PC's are upgradable. Here is where the "big money" gets into play. People are always upgrading and buying new hardware and they want something to show off that new hardware that they just spent money on. Games are the easy way to do that. There will always be a demand for games on the PC as long as there is demand for new hardware in the PC market, plain and simple. Developers will also migrate towards the latest technology as well. This is something that does not occur in the console market as all the systems are on about the same release schedule which is about every 4-5 years. That release schedule is REQUIRED. Console makers can not come out with new systems before that time is up, otherwise they can not recoup the costs for the console. Most sell their consoles at cost for producing the console (i.e. hardware and manufacturing costs), but not DESIGN costs. They plan on using the licensing fees they gain from games to recoup the design costs and then actually make a profit. It takes about 3-4 years for that to actually happen. This is the only reason why consoles themselves are cheap. If new consoles were comming out every 6-10 months, then the prices would be higher then PC hardware.
Yeah 19" and 1280x1024 resolution...
on
Are CRTs History?
·
· Score: 1
That doesn't come close to what I use normally on my 17"!!! Not only that but it is also only a 6 bit color TN panel. In otherwords, 262,144 colors. For those of you who can count, you should know that your 24bit and 32bit graphics cards will produce 4,722,366,482,869,645,213,696 and 79,228,162,514,264,337,593,543,950,336 colors respectively. I sure do not know about you, but why do we even bother having graphics cards that are even 8 bit color if the display can't even produce that, let alone 24bit or God forbid 32bit.
When there is a panel that can do 24bit color at 1600x1200 on a 17" screen without ghosting, then I will ditch my CRT. To be honest with your LCD's will never hit that (at least not in my lifetime). SED or FED may have a better chance of replacing my display then LCD in the next 5-10 years.
The gaming industry knows that this will only kill them off. They have had a taste of it in the controler market already and really didn't like it. True frce feedback was pretty much killed off because of this. They also know that patents on games will kill their chances of getting people to play a new genere of games (if and when that happens) as many people do not like the steep learning curves that different generes produce and will simply not purchase a game...
For the size and performance, they are hard to beat. A dual opteron setup in a 1U rack case is a very powerful setup in and of itself. The bonus of using off the shelf components with no need for proprietary hardware or software also make them very affordable. The added bonus is that you can simply get the parts from regular retailers for replacement.
Flash point: 135C (275F) CC
If any one component or combination hits this it will light on fire. P4's can easily hit 100C even without overclocking in some systems (limited cooling). If there is not enought oil to air heat exchange occurring, it could catch on fire if he keeps it on too long...
Toshiba and Cannon have a very similar product already in production (or will be this month). They call it "SED TV". Do a google search on it. It will be out around August/September. But will probably cost as much as you standard 50-60" plasma/LCD even though it is cheaper to make (same as the carbon nano-tube).
Trust me, you will not see the price reduction that you hope. Even if it only costs $10 to produce, they will still sell it at $4-6k for a 40-50" screen simply because it is better then everything else. As a result of it being better then products that cost 4-5x its cost to make, its sale price will still be the same price as competing products, maybe undercutting them 5-10%, but not much more. The last thing they want it to drop the floor value of the market, which is what would happen if they actually produced and sold their own products costs. You price a product as to what the market can withstand to maximize profits, not to maximize market share. Simple macro-economics will tell you that if people are willing to pay that much for a product, then you sell it at that price point even if your product isn't that expensive. Why should you ever want to NOT take the extra money the consumers are willing to pay.
We will not see a major drop in price of HDTV's until everyone is producing these panels. Why start a price war in a market that offers you chances to make a 500% profit? Until there are at least 2 or 3 companies with similar products, we will not see a drop in prices. As a monopoly on the technology, (which you are if you are the first and only one to market), you can set your prices to whatever you feel consumers will pay.
Take this comparison. Did the price of albums drop when CD's were introduced? Heck no. We all know that it costs pennies to make the actual medium and put the data on that medium, vs dollars for tape with the same music. But you will typically pay $5-6 more for a CD then a tape, why, because the quality is better and the market can afford the price (well one could argue this, but this is the music industry's feeling). The same will be with this TV technology. It is much cheaper to make, but since it is technologically better then the others available, it will sport a higher price.
Back to the subject of my topic, Toshiba already has been demo'ing this for several months now, it debued last September/October at all the trade shows. It is pretty much the exact same idea, just with a different element used instead of carbon nanotubes for the electron stream emmitter array. Has pretty much same exact bonuses as this technology does, thin, brighter screen, much higher contrast ration (10,000:1 is quoted and measured from working screen!), full color support, refresh times faster then CRT's, less power consumption then LCD, weight about the same as LCD's, as high a pixel count as the best LCD's. In otherwords, take the best benefits of all the current TV standard technologies (plasma, LCD, CRT) and combine then best characteristics of each into one TV without any of the particular drawbacks of the different technologies (i.e. no poor contrast ratio and pixel count of Plasma's, poor contrast ratio and refresh times of LCD's, bulky size, weight and power usage of CRT's).
What this all means is if you are planning on buying a HDTV now or the near future, you absolutely are stupid if you purchase something right now and do not wait the 2-3 months for this technology to be available. You are simply throwing $2-10k down the toilet and flushing, because this stuff truely and utterly beats everything that is currently available by a VERY noticable margin.
There are many ways around this. First and formost is the way already suggested, a list of valid users, the second is a rating system tied into the network itself. Basically, MD5 the individual file segment blocks, not just the file itself. Also download the block from multiple sources and compair. The one that is most prevailent can be assumed to be the correct file block, but maybe not.
You could also tie in the actual file data into the share (i.e. have speific bytes from the block in the naming/database/share scheme that must match others availabe for it to be grouped together, not just similar MD5sum). This prevents files being corrupted because they downloaded part from a valid source vs a part from an invalid source.
You may also come up with some sort of networked rating system for the files themselves, allowing for files to recieve values based on if they were valid or invalid. Have the functions hard coded to specific numbers say "+1" for a valid file signal being sent and "-100" for an invalid file. Force some checking before recieving the signal (i.e. the signal must be recieved from a source which has just downloaded the specified block) which will limit some of the spread of spoofed signals, but this sytem could probably be hijacked in the current form, but combining it with the users list could allow for quick removal of any files which are invalid from propigating far and wide on actually used segments of the networks vs and staged clients placed to spread junk data.
I deal with this all the time. There are a few methods that have been approved. You can format with a writting a complete random 0's, 1's across the entire disk 3 times (this includes the protected area where the MBR sits and is hidden from normal usage). Or you can destroy the disk completely. Typically destruction of the disk entails dismantaling the enclosure, removing the platters and then emmersion in a acid or burning in furnace to melt the platters. Hammers are not recommended as the broken pieces can still contain data which given enough resources can be extracted.
Yeah your puny 7200rpm IDE/SATA drives are a limitation. That is why people who actually need the IO power use hardware RAIDed SCSI or fibre channel disks. Lets see, fibre are 15k rpm standard with about 200MB/s data rate. And that is single drive performance. Any decent hardware RAID will net you 500-600MB/s data in a RAID 5 config. High performance setups can net you over 1GB/s data rate from disk. Most current RAM only gives you 3.2GB/s in a single channel config, and 6.4GB/s in a dual channel configuration. That is only a 3-6x drop in performance for going to disk.
Now if you REALLY want performance, you wouldn't be using mechanical drives at all but solid state disks, which will net you a 3.75GB/s on a infiniband bus. And that is just one of the different ways you can connect them. There are even faster busses out there.
If you have applications that need to use even more then what you can get off a RAID fibre channel setup, then you have some serious issues with your programming or are doing some absolute MAJOR work (i.e. simulating the earth at the particle level).
Both Clearcase and Norton2003 will not work. Of course we want to stop all employees from being able to continue working on their coding projects as well as open up all computers to any and all viruses that exist out there...
Prior Art? Come on... "Nintendo Rumble Pack..."
on
PlayStation Sales Halted?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
My gosh. The patent office is full of ABSOLUTE IDIOTS!!! Lets see, the "Rumble Pack" came out with Star Fox on the Nintendo64 system. This puts "tactile feedback" in existance since 1997, 3 FULL YEARS before the May, 2000 filing of patent 6,275,213, and over 4 years before patent 6,424,333.
The "Rumble Pack" itself is, and completely satisfied the requirements for the first patent pretty much to the letter. And as such prior art in actual consumer existance (not even simply on paper or in the process of having its patents pending), it should completely nullify said patent under any kind of scrutiny. I think at most, the only difference may be the fact that the rumble pack was either on or off (I don't know for a fact if there were variable signals sent to the pack, or if it was just rapidly sending the start/stop signals to mimic multiple intensity of the rumble feedback). Even if that is the only difference, you must be able to argue that this is clearly NOT "new", "inovative", or "non-intuitive" extension of the "Rumble Pack" technology. Heck, they WERE doing something which created the EXACT same effect, but instead of using a multi-state signal, they used rapid switching of on-off to create the same output, in effect pattenting something that is already being done, just not explained the same way. Like I said, I do not know for certain there were not multiple settings for the "Rumble Pack", a Nintendo engineer would need to speak out about that, all I remember was that there was a different output from when I was in a big explosion compaired to when I was simply hit with a laser...
The second patent 6,275,213 should not EVEN APPLY!!! It is a patent on a human computer INPUT device interface, in other words, it takes tactile feedback from the human, NOT the computer!!!. The dual shock controlers take input from the computer, NOT the human!!!
See civproject.net and other Avalon Hill games
on
Fun Tabletop Games?
·
· Score: 4, Informative
If you have a hard time finding the game (and you will since it is no longer being made), I would go check out http://www.civproject.net/.
Even before you buy the game if you manage to find it, the above site will give you an idea about it and help out with expansions and rule changes for the better of the game. They have done a HECK of a lot of work on continuing the development of the game, adding comodities, calamities, technologies, expanding the board, adding more players, rule changes, etc., which all create an even more interesting game.
I will say this, if you can not get the Advanced Civilization expansion set, the game is not NEARLY as good. But this is what makes it so hard to find. The regular Civilization game shows up on Ebay about 1-2 times a week and usually goes for around $80 depending on condition. However, Advanced Civ only shows up 1-2 times a month and goes for between $100-200 depending on condition. That is a lot of money to spend on a game if you are not sure you like it. I was lucky enough to play it about a year after it stopped being in production and absolutly loved the game. I was also lucky enough to actually find a store which still had it in stock (I called up every game store I could find, and found a place 80 miles away which still had it, they held it for me and I bought them, if I recall for their retail price of between $35-40 each, which is an absolute bargain now).
Another GREAT game is Republic of Rome also by Avalon Hill. Again, this is also no longer being made and is fairly rare to find. I didn't want to pay more then $150 for it and it took me 7 months to win an auction on Ebay for that price. Yes, there were several that went for less then that, but those were games that the sellers did not know if all the pieces existed anymore.
I would also check out other great Avalon Hill games like "Merchants of Venus" and "Blackbeard". Not everyone likes Blackbeard, but we do. We made some rules changes to add another player, it also seems to balance the game better (basically you do not really go in "turns", the person who's current turn it is pulls a card at the end of the turn to find out who goes next (the cards have a place on them for the number of players in the game and either a "blank", "player 1", "player 2", "player 3", or "player 4"). The game was designed for 4 people max, and if the blank come up, it remains that person's turn OR if it come up with your number (say player 3), it is also your turn. The blanks are there for the single player version of the game... Anyway, we changed the rules so you use the line for the number of players that you have minus 1 (i.e. if you have 4 players you use the 3 player game line), and if a blank shows up, it remains your turn, but if a certain player shows up, it is the player who is that many from the left of the person who drew the card (i.e. if player 2 is shown on the card, the person 2 people to the left of the current player now has a turn). I really helps balance the game more as well as give all the people at the table more turns instead of it being the same players turn 3 or 4 times in a row while everyone else does nothing but sit there...
Again, civilization is probably one of the greated board games ever created, especially if you have a large number of people (8-19 or more with the civproject.net expanded rules). Now it will take some time for you to get/make the board, pieces, cards, etc., if you use the civproject.net's expanded board and rules, but it is worth it to do. The regular Advanced Civ game is for 2-8 players and is really good as well (we play this the most, we only use the extra board/rules when we have more players).
I know I didn't talk much about Republic of Rome. It is too hard to describe. Basically I will give you this paraphrased quote from the rule book "The complexity of this game will make games such as 'Diplomacy' seem like 'Shoots and Ladders'". And to give you a hint, "Diplomacy" is a complex game.... You will proba
As is, I'm afraid that once "broadcast flag enabled" hardware goes on sale it will be hard to change.
This already is implemented in some hardware. Others are using encryption to keep the digital media "locked down" and only accessible on "certified" devices (DVI/HDMI with HDCP). These devices are already out there, you just don't hear about it on the news since the news is partly or wholly owned by the media companies already...
I want to say this. He will most likely recieve a TM on that "exact" image, and that "exact image" alone. (i.e. not the word mame, not the word mame in that font, style, size, color, but that EXACT font, size, color, background, and that one ONLY). There are other trademarks granted for the same word, even for the same type of product, but when existing art is already there or the word is a common word (think Windows(TM)) a trademark can still be given on an exact image. Prior art already exists for using that same font and color scheme, but what I havn't been able to find is an exact copy of that image that was submitted.
There is a big but in this. It should be noted that he will not be able to sue people unless they use the EXACT same image. And I mean EXACT. He may still own the copywrite on it if he really did make it himself, and thus can still sue under that basis for people who use his exact image. But if you look around, most people are using stuff a little fancier, crisper, flashier with backgrounds behind or stylings around the word MAME, and all of those will stand as they are already, and he will not be able to do anything about it. It is the same reason why Microsoft has never wanted to have a true court case involving its trademarking of the word Windows, it has always managed to skirt the issue and or settle cases before rulings could get made to make the case go away before being striped of the TM. If it ever does actually make it to court, it would most likely be stripped in the current court system.
I work on the Unix/Linux side of one of the IT departments at my work. We have about 25 admins for 180+ servers and 900+ workstations, plus a beowulf cluster and associated SAN/NAS devices. And we actually have free time to work on other projects (like in-house software development/support, training, and learning/developing new technologies to roll-out).
The PC group has about 80 people to support ~700 PC's and 70 servers.
Do the math...
Just to get back to this, not that you will probably ever see it...
It appears that it is you who needs to get the facts straight. Go do the research yourself. Go look up the dating methods used for the dead sea scrolls. Go look up the results found with dating the shroud the first time. Go look up the known history of the shroud. And go look up the methods used to date the shroud the last time it was dated. Finally go read up on carbon dating itself and its know falicies with reguard to proper sampling, and methods for known contaminated samples.
Also do some research into the known history of the shroud. If it is a fake, they did a very good job and I congratulate the people who made it. The only thing modern fronsic science has been able to determin is that it has pollen, seeds, and plant particles from plants located in the proper areas from the proper timeframes. Including several extremely rare plants that are specific to those regions, specifically the bean caper (Zygophyllum dumosum), which is known to only grow in Israel, Jordon, and parts of Egypt. Other plants found were the Rock Rose (Cistus creticus) found through the Middle East, and the Goundelia tournefortii tumbleweed which is believed to have been the plant used to make the "crown of thorns". So this evidence shows that who or whatever made the shroud exposed it to those environments. Traces were also found of plants native to the area around Istambul (formerly Constantinople), where it was believed that the shroud stayed for many years for safe keeping. Think about it, forensic evidence such as this has not been even remotely considered back in the 1500's. Delibertly introducing such evidence onto the shroud by anyone attempting a forgery at that time would never ever have been someone's idea. It would be like us today placing an object in some type of specific electro-magnetic field because in 400 years from now we discover that you can pin-point to an exact date/time and location that an object was made by looking at some signature in its atom's fields (please note this last statment is clearly a madeup statment, but it is trying to point out that no one in that time would have introduced this type of evidence into making a forgery as it is evidence that was not even detectable in the time and thus, useless to the forger who simply wants to make some money/fame from his forgery, invisible evidence is no good to a person like this).
The former most probable and widely accepted version of how the shroud came into being was that it was painted for a rich French family during the renaissance period. The pollen evidence clearly disproves this theory along with the physical evidence that of the coloring on the shroud itself not meeting with any known way of painting only the outermost part of the fibers, where paint itself would be "wicked" up into the fibers and not remain on the outer edges.
Again, there are too many gaps in its history, and too many unanswered questions. But it is a testiment to its creator(s) that it has withstood forensic scientific tests and continutes to point to it being possibly authentic. Does this prove that it is the burial shroud of Jesus? No. But up until now, the only test that it has not withstood has been a carbon dating test which has been shown to have been flawed in its methods the last time it was preformed.
(4) the term `computer' means an electronic, magnetic, optical, electrochemical, or other high speed data processing device performing logical, arithmetic, or storage functions, and may include both a central processing unit and a monitor, but such term does not include an automated typewriter or typesetter, a portable hand held calculator, or other similar device;
Also note:
(3) the term `central processing unit' includes a case and all of its contents, such as the primary printed circuit board and its components, additional printed circuit boards, one or more disc drives, a transformer, interior wire, and a power cord;
And:
(e) ADDITIONAL EXEMPTION- The Administrator may exempt from the requirement of a fee under this section any sale made under a contract or an arrangement that the Administrator determines is likely to result in the maximum reuse of significant components of the computer, monitor, or device, and the disposal of the remaining components--
(1) in an environmentally sound and responsible manner;
(2) without violation of any Federal or State law; and
(3) without reliance on funding from State or local governments,
when the computer, monitor, or device is no longer of use to the end-user.
(f) DESIGNATION OF ELECTRONIC DEVICES- The Administrator may designate additional electronic devices to which the fee under subsection (a) shall apply if those electronic devices--
(1) contain a significant amount of material that, when disposed of, would be hazardous waste; and
(2) include one or more liquid crystal displays, cathode ray tubes, or circuit boards.
So, basically right now, only full systems seem to be called "a computer" (i.e. your standard Dell/HP/Gateway, etc., pizza box/tower). But they reserve the right for parts to later be specified, basically anything with a circuit board or LCD.
Well, ok lets think about this logically. We already have several possible reasons for the inaccuracy of the carbon dating. This is just yet another look at the dating method used to show that is has flaws.
To me, the most blatent flaw is the know fact that the shroud has/had a bacterial infestation in its long history. Enough so that any dating method used would and should clean the cloth before attempting to date it, but it was not cleaned, and might not be possible to clean before dating. This new look wants to take samples from multiple places on the shroud, which makes much more sense knowing that there is contamination that will skew any and all results to a newer creation date (as the bacterial mass would was living on the shroud after its actual creation and thus have giving a possitive time shift to the data collected which still includes this added mass to the testing mass, the shroud fibers themselves, not the shroud and bacteria that is on the shroud.
There was a similar issue with the dead sea scrolls. But with those, a solution was found to get more accurate readings by measuring the age a one of the scrolls which had were dated and cross-referenced with other known sources to be known accurate to the particular dates/time frame, and compairing that result with the result found on the other scrolls. In those cases, there was a 200-300 year difference resolved. By compairing the resulting carbon date output range in those cases, it was found that the lowest possible number in the carbon dating was the true date. It was still within the margin of error of data in that particular case(s), but it was the extreme low end which was a 200-300 year shift from the nominal value of the range.
In the shroud's case, there is no other documentation found with the shroud, no other similar objects which have dates associated with them, at least not until the 16th century when it passed into the hands of the church. And thus no way to use the same methods used to date the dead sea scrolls in this case. What is known, is that there is contamination. How much is up for debate simply because more tests have not been performed, and because science does not want to expose the known flaws with carbon dating. I say known as they are known to scientists and intelligent people, but not known to the general public who have been lead to believe that it is the be-all-end-all method and that the results never lie, but when in reality, the results can easily be skewed to the possitive timeframe by contamination (this is why other objects that are dated try to use material that is not exposed to the direct elements, but this is not possible in this case).
All I am saying is that there are many known reasons for the dating to be skewed. Is it possible that the dating was skewed 1100 years or so, I do not know. It could be if the bacterial infestation was extrememly pervasive in the area from where the sample was taken.
Personnally, I believe that it may be a fake, but the fact that we have yet to prove it one way or the other keeps my mind open. The real question should be if it is a fake, how was it made? We still have yet to answer that. There is speculation that it was painted by an artist, but if that was the case, the paint should have been absorbed by the fibers and penetrated them, when the coloring is only on the extreme edges of the fibers. Another suggestion was that it was "burned" on by a massive bronze/iron statue being heated and the cloth being draped over the statue. This too has been disprooven as the photographic negative effect would not have been created with this method (emperical tests were done to test this and the resulting works did not withstand the photographic negative test). When after almost 700 years no one has been able to show how it was made, especially with all the advances in science and technology only showing how much more there is to the shroud, I keep a open mind that it could be authentic, but a skeptical mind given the nature of the time in which it came into existance...
You describe exactly what I get to do all day long. Grant it some of it is constrained (we have a network group which gets mad when we log into their switches and make configuration changes, like activate a port for a specific subnet, etc., and there is a "security team", but they don't actually know anything about the technology, which really leaves it up to us to really be the security administrators).
I have had to learn perl, php, mysql, java, javascript/html, C/C++, oracle, ingres, and shell scripting. I get to play on beowulf clusters. I work for a Fortune 500 Co, and I get to do all the fun things there are to being a Systems Administrator, and am paid more then 2x the prive you quoted. I did work my way up a little, but there is a learning curve at any new system/network layout before you really know what is going on. If you truely know what you are doing, you should quickly be able to pickup the new setup within 3 months. You already know how to do things, and any possition you accept should be aware of that fact and place you accordingly. Any decent company want to use their assets (i.e. "you") to their fullest capability, they are paying you for that, so they want to get the most out of you. If you really know what to do, they won't want to waste you doing mundain tasks when you could be solving why system X freezes when user XYZ starts a certain process, but doesn't freeze when user ZYX starts the same process, or need to configure 20 new nodes to add into the beowulf cluster and "test" them;)
Comcast in their infinite wisdom, failed to actually test any of the rollout. In increasing the bandwidth, they decided to change the frequency that was used to send the signal to the customers' cable modem boxes. In doing so, just about every older box became "incompatible". They didn't completely break and fail to work, but they would drop packets left and right due to not being able to handle the higher frequency signal (they could handle the higher bandwidth if a lower frequency signal was still used to transmit the info).
Comcast themselves had no idea that this would happen, and even failed to believe that the problem was on their end. People had been calling customer service for the first two weeks of the new year (Comcast made the switchover on Jan 1st), and were reporting general problems. The biggest problem was the fact that the changeover also affected just about every major DNS server Comcast had in existance, which were then also dropping packets as well. This added about a 5 second delay to most customers, in addition to the other problems occuring.
So, we have customer systems dropping packets, and Comcast servers dropping packets, and adding the two together created huge usability issues across the entire network. But Comcast still refused to take responsibility for the problems in the early weeks, with the goal being to clear up the customer service lines as opposed to take problems down. Comcast has finally appeared to fix some of the issues within the last week by sending out upgraded software to customer cable modem boxes. I still believe they are having DNS issues (but then again, when is Comcast NOT having DNS issues), but I do not know as I stopped using their DNS servers 3 years ago due to how unreliable their DNS servers are (they were failing at least 2 times a week for at least 1 day at a time).
In anycase, there has been speculation that there will be a price increase in 6 months timeframe, but this may not happen now. Origionally, the speed increase was going to coincide with a $5-$10 price increase as well, but that plan was dropped when news was leaked to customers. There was also supposed to be another $5 increase in 6 months, but that too may be dropped now as well. The other huge backlash Comcast is recieving is for removing unlimited newsgroup access for the former AT&T customers, who were origionally told at the time of the Comcast buyout that no loss of current service would occur, which was also a condition of the buyout/merger. Comcast's normal customers already had lost unlimited newsgroup access when Comcast took over the @HOME network in certain areas several years ago, and limited users to 1 gig a month newsgroup access. That limit was increased to 2 gigs a month Jan 1st at the same time they dropped support for the unlimited access for the former AT&T customers (in an atempt to appease them).
I for one can not wait until Verizon brings fiber to the home. I live in one of the lucky few test/rollout states (NJ) which will begin to recieve service during this year. Comcast is going to have some serious problems when that occurs, as the initial pricing is actually cheaper then Comcast's normal cable modem service, and is faster then Comcast's premium 6mbps service, with much less restrictions (i.e. Verizon does not care how you use it, as long as it is legal, so servers for web, email, ftp, etc., are all allowed, and unlimited newsgroups service is included).
Samsung is already working on this very issue by releasing LCD displays that meet professional graphics color standards. I'm too lazy to find the links, but it was on www.anandtech.com and www.tomshardware.com a month or so back. They were due to be released right about now...
Also, the article is a little dated in terms of what it talks about. Especially with the "... the consumer versions of which are limited to about 42 inches" which is VERY out of date. 50" plasmas are very available, and even affordable. 45" and 46" LCD's are available, but are scarse due to high demand (especially for the 45" Sharp). Sharp supposedly has a 65" and 70" LCD comming out in the next generation due in about 4-6 months. There are 70" and 80" plasma's being worked on with higher resolution. And these are all consumer level products, which do not include the industrial versions as well as the other large industrial panels that are available as well, many of which offer better quality as the CQ is much more intense (i.e. no dead pixel policies, longer warrenties)
This is the same issue dealing with any copyright issue when you look at the difference between a "free" (as in copied), and "paid for" (as in legit) item. When the only knowledge you have is the bottomline, "I only made $800,000 this year vs. $1.2 million 5 years ago", how do you know the exact breakup?
Lets just look at this from a market point of view. Did your market (customers who would "need" your product) shrink, grow, or stay the same over the last 5 years? If it shrank, well, guess what, that is why no one is buying it anymore. If it stayed the same, well, that too is why no one is buying it anymore (they already bought your product, there is no need for them to buy it again!). If it grew, then, how much did it grow? Who are your customers? What are their current financial issues (we are still in a recession and as a result spending is still being cut). How important is this product to your customer's business? If it is not EXTREMELY important, then it will have been cut.
Competitors? Do you have any new ones? Are there now open source products that do the same thing as your product? Are there other solutions by other companies that do the same thing as your product? Are the features that other competting products have that your product does not?
Innovate? Are you still innovating? If you are not creating new things that are truely must have, then customers are simply going to not buy it, and the ones who have already bought it will have no reason to upgrade (are you even upgrading your product?).
Is your product really a magic money printing press? Did you truely believe that people will pay whatever you want for your product and that they would continue doing so indefinetly? How do you know this is a "must have" product that everyone needs and no one else can supply? Five years is an extremely long time for a software solution to some problem. A LOT changes in five years. How do you know that it is because people are copying your product that you are making less money now then five years ago? The reason Microsoft continues to make money is because they have a whole new product every 2-3 years.
Do yourself a favor and get some true market annalysis done before saying that such-and-such is the reason I am not making as much money this year off this product as I did five years ago for the same product.
Slashdot Mirror
You also will not see consoles beat out PC's until they add in ways to communicate with other people online that are simple and easy. We are close to that now, but not quite there yet.
Also also, you will not see consoles replace PC's in gaming for reasons of AI. Consoles are not designed to be able to handle code for AI. They are streamlined for handling FP operations and matrix operations, but can not run code which has code substitution, something that is required for AI to work (i.e. the code needs to make changes to its actions as it learns while playing against the player, and needs to substitute out its current "actions" (a function) for a different set of "actions" (a completely different function). In otherwords, it needs to be able to change its own code on the fly, which is NOT supported by current generation consoles or even the next generation consoles, but your PC could do this 15 years ago.
Each and every generation of consoles this same topic comes up by someone, and each time the articles are completely disproven. And why is that? Well here is the last reason that you didn't think about. This reason has to do with "BIG MONEY". Technology is always improving (at least at this moment in time). As such, as new things are coming out, those new things make it into PC's. Why, because PC's are upgradable. Here is where the "big money" gets into play. People are always upgrading and buying new hardware and they want something to show off that new hardware that they just spent money on. Games are the easy way to do that. There will always be a demand for games on the PC as long as there is demand for new hardware in the PC market, plain and simple. Developers will also migrate towards the latest technology as well. This is something that does not occur in the console market as all the systems are on about the same release schedule which is about every 4-5 years. That release schedule is REQUIRED. Console makers can not come out with new systems before that time is up, otherwise they can not recoup the costs for the console. Most sell their consoles at cost for producing the console (i.e. hardware and manufacturing costs), but not DESIGN costs. They plan on using the licensing fees they gain from games to recoup the design costs and then actually make a profit. It takes about 3-4 years for that to actually happen. This is the only reason why consoles themselves are cheap. If new consoles were comming out every 6-10 months, then the prices would be higher then PC hardware.
When there is a panel that can do 24bit color at 1600x1200 on a 17" screen without ghosting, then I will ditch my CRT. To be honest with your LCD's will never hit that (at least not in my lifetime). SED or FED may have a better chance of replacing my display then LCD in the next 5-10 years.
The gaming industry knows that this will only kill them off. They have had a taste of it in the controler market already and really didn't like it. True frce feedback was pretty much killed off because of this. They also know that patents on games will kill their chances of getting people to play a new genere of games (if and when that happens) as many people do not like the steep learning curves that different generes produce and will simply not purchase a game...
For the size and performance, they are hard to beat. A dual opteron setup in a 1U rack case is a very powerful setup in and of itself. The bonus of using off the shelf components with no need for proprietary hardware or software also make them very affordable. The added bonus is that you can simply get the parts from regular retailers for replacement.
Flash point: 135C (275F) CC If any one component or combination hits this it will light on fire. P4's can easily hit 100C even without overclocking in some systems (limited cooling). If there is not enought oil to air heat exchange occurring, it could catch on fire if he keeps it on too long...
http://i4u.com/article3233.html
http://www.digitimes.com/NewsShow/Article.asp?date Publish=2005/04/21&pages=A8&seq=42
Trust me, you will not see the price reduction that you hope. Even if it only costs $10 to produce, they will still sell it at $4-6k for a 40-50" screen simply because it is better then everything else. As a result of it being better then products that cost 4-5x its cost to make, its sale price will still be the same price as competing products, maybe undercutting them 5-10%, but not much more. The last thing they want it to drop the floor value of the market, which is what would happen if they actually produced and sold their own products costs. You price a product as to what the market can withstand to maximize profits, not to maximize market share. Simple macro-economics will tell you that if people are willing to pay that much for a product, then you sell it at that price point even if your product isn't that expensive. Why should you ever want to NOT take the extra money the consumers are willing to pay.
We will not see a major drop in price of HDTV's until everyone is producing these panels. Why start a price war in a market that offers you chances to make a 500% profit? Until there are at least 2 or 3 companies with similar products, we will not see a drop in prices. As a monopoly on the technology, (which you are if you are the first and only one to market), you can set your prices to whatever you feel consumers will pay.
Take this comparison. Did the price of albums drop when CD's were introduced? Heck no. We all know that it costs pennies to make the actual medium and put the data on that medium, vs dollars for tape with the same music. But you will typically pay $5-6 more for a CD then a tape, why, because the quality is better and the market can afford the price (well one could argue this, but this is the music industry's feeling). The same will be with this TV technology. It is much cheaper to make, but since it is technologically better then the others available, it will sport a higher price.
Back to the subject of my topic, Toshiba already has been demo'ing this for several months now, it debued last September/October at all the trade shows. It is pretty much the exact same idea, just with a different element used instead of carbon nanotubes for the electron stream emmitter array. Has pretty much same exact bonuses as this technology does, thin, brighter screen, much higher contrast ration (10,000:1 is quoted and measured from working screen!), full color support, refresh times faster then CRT's, less power consumption then LCD, weight about the same as LCD's, as high a pixel count as the best LCD's. In otherwords, take the best benefits of all the current TV standard technologies (plasma, LCD, CRT) and combine then best characteristics of each into one TV without any of the particular drawbacks of the different technologies (i.e. no poor contrast ratio and pixel count of Plasma's, poor contrast ratio and refresh times of LCD's, bulky size, weight and power usage of CRT's).
What this all means is if you are planning on buying a HDTV now or the near future, you absolutely are stupid if you purchase something right now and do not wait the 2-3 months for this technology to be available. You are simply throwing $2-10k down the toilet and flushing, because this stuff truely and utterly beats everything that is currently available by a VERY noticable margin.
You could also tie in the actual file data into the share (i.e. have speific bytes from the block in the naming/database/share scheme that must match others availabe for it to be grouped together, not just similar MD5sum). This prevents files being corrupted because they downloaded part from a valid source vs a part from an invalid source.
You may also come up with some sort of networked rating system for the files themselves, allowing for files to recieve values based on if they were valid or invalid. Have the functions hard coded to specific numbers say "+1" for a valid file signal being sent and "-100" for an invalid file. Force some checking before recieving the signal (i.e. the signal must be recieved from a source which has just downloaded the specified block) which will limit some of the spread of spoofed signals, but this sytem could probably be hijacked in the current form, but combining it with the users list could allow for quick removal of any files which are invalid from propigating far and wide on actually used segments of the networks vs and staged clients placed to spread junk data.
I deal with this all the time. There are a few methods that have been approved. You can format with a writting a complete random 0's, 1's across the entire disk 3 times (this includes the protected area where the MBR sits and is hidden from normal usage). Or you can destroy the disk completely. Typically destruction of the disk entails dismantaling the enclosure, removing the platters and then emmersion in a acid or burning in furnace to melt the platters. Hammers are not recommended as the broken pieces can still contain data which given enough resources can be extracted.
Now if you REALLY want performance, you wouldn't be using mechanical drives at all but solid state disks, which will net you a 3.75GB/s on a infiniband bus. And that is just one of the different ways you can connect them. There are even faster busses out there.
If you have applications that need to use even more then what you can get off a RAID fibre channel setup, then you have some serious issues with your programming or are doing some absolute MAJOR work (i.e. simulating the earth at the particle level).
Both Clearcase and Norton2003 will not work. Of course we want to stop all employees from being able to continue working on their coding projects as well as open up all computers to any and all viruses that exist out there...
The "Rumble Pack" itself is, and completely satisfied the requirements for the first patent pretty much to the letter. And as such prior art in actual consumer existance (not even simply on paper or in the process of having its patents pending), it should completely nullify said patent under any kind of scrutiny. I think at most, the only difference may be the fact that the rumble pack was either on or off (I don't know for a fact if there were variable signals sent to the pack, or if it was just rapidly sending the start/stop signals to mimic multiple intensity of the rumble feedback). Even if that is the only difference, you must be able to argue that this is clearly NOT "new", "inovative", or "non-intuitive" extension of the "Rumble Pack" technology. Heck, they WERE doing something which created the EXACT same effect, but instead of using a multi-state signal, they used rapid switching of on-off to create the same output, in effect pattenting something that is already being done, just not explained the same way. Like I said, I do not know for certain there were not multiple settings for the "Rumble Pack", a Nintendo engineer would need to speak out about that, all I remember was that there was a different output from when I was in a big explosion compaired to when I was simply hit with a laser...
The second patent 6,275,213 should not EVEN APPLY!!! It is a patent on a human computer INPUT device interface, in other words, it takes tactile feedback from the human, NOT the computer!!!. The dual shock controlers take input from the computer, NOT the human!!!
Even before you buy the game if you manage to find it, the above site will give you an idea about it and help out with expansions and rule changes for the better of the game. They have done a HECK of a lot of work on continuing the development of the game, adding comodities, calamities, technologies, expanding the board, adding more players, rule changes, etc., which all create an even more interesting game.
I will say this, if you can not get the Advanced Civilization expansion set, the game is not NEARLY as good. But this is what makes it so hard to find. The regular Civilization game shows up on Ebay about 1-2 times a week and usually goes for around $80 depending on condition. However, Advanced Civ only shows up 1-2 times a month and goes for between $100-200 depending on condition. That is a lot of money to spend on a game if you are not sure you like it. I was lucky enough to play it about a year after it stopped being in production and absolutly loved the game. I was also lucky enough to actually find a store which still had it in stock (I called up every game store I could find, and found a place 80 miles away which still had it, they held it for me and I bought them, if I recall for their retail price of between $35-40 each, which is an absolute bargain now).
Another GREAT game is Republic of Rome also by Avalon Hill. Again, this is also no longer being made and is fairly rare to find. I didn't want to pay more then $150 for it and it took me 7 months to win an auction on Ebay for that price. Yes, there were several that went for less then that, but those were games that the sellers did not know if all the pieces existed anymore.
I would also check out other great Avalon Hill games like "Merchants of Venus" and "Blackbeard". Not everyone likes Blackbeard, but we do. We made some rules changes to add another player, it also seems to balance the game better (basically you do not really go in "turns", the person who's current turn it is pulls a card at the end of the turn to find out who goes next (the cards have a place on them for the number of players in the game and either a "blank", "player 1", "player 2", "player 3", or "player 4"). The game was designed for 4 people max, and if the blank come up, it remains that person's turn OR if it come up with your number (say player 3), it is also your turn. The blanks are there for the single player version of the game... Anyway, we changed the rules so you use the line for the number of players that you have minus 1 (i.e. if you have 4 players you use the 3 player game line), and if a blank shows up, it remains your turn, but if a certain player shows up, it is the player who is that many from the left of the person who drew the card (i.e. if player 2 is shown on the card, the person 2 people to the left of the current player now has a turn). I really helps balance the game more as well as give all the people at the table more turns instead of it being the same players turn 3 or 4 times in a row while everyone else does nothing but sit there...
Again, civilization is probably one of the greated board games ever created, especially if you have a large number of people (8-19 or more with the civproject.net expanded rules). Now it will take some time for you to get/make the board, pieces, cards, etc., if you use the civproject.net's expanded board and rules, but it is worth it to do. The regular Advanced Civ game is for 2-8 players and is really good as well (we play this the most, we only use the extra board/rules when we have more players).
I know I didn't talk much about Republic of Rome. It is too hard to describe. Basically I will give you this paraphrased quote from the rule book "The complexity of this game will make games such as 'Diplomacy' seem like 'Shoots and Ladders'". And to give you a hint, "Diplomacy" is a complex game.... You will proba
This already is implemented in some hardware. Others are using encryption to keep the digital media "locked down" and only accessible on "certified" devices (DVI/HDMI with HDCP). These devices are already out there, you just don't hear about it on the news since the news is partly or wholly owned by the media companies already...
There is a big but in this. It should be noted that he will not be able to sue people unless they use the EXACT same image. And I mean EXACT. He may still own the copywrite on it if he really did make it himself, and thus can still sue under that basis for people who use his exact image. But if you look around, most people are using stuff a little fancier, crisper, flashier with backgrounds behind or stylings around the word MAME, and all of those will stand as they are already, and he will not be able to do anything about it. It is the same reason why Microsoft has never wanted to have a true court case involving its trademarking of the word Windows, it has always managed to skirt the issue and or settle cases before rulings could get made to make the case go away before being striped of the TM. If it ever does actually make it to court, it would most likely be stripped in the current court system.
I work on the Unix/Linux side of one of the IT departments at my work. We have about 25 admins for 180+ servers and 900+ workstations, plus a beowulf cluster and associated SAN/NAS devices. And we actually have free time to work on other projects (like in-house software development/support, training, and learning/developing new technologies to roll-out). The PC group has about 80 people to support ~700 PC's and 70 servers. Do the math...
It appears that it is you who needs to get the facts straight. Go do the research yourself. Go look up the dating methods used for the dead sea scrolls. Go look up the results found with dating the shroud the first time. Go look up the known history of the shroud. And go look up the methods used to date the shroud the last time it was dated. Finally go read up on carbon dating itself and its know falicies with reguard to proper sampling, and methods for known contaminated samples.
Also do some research into the known history of the shroud. If it is a fake, they did a very good job and I congratulate the people who made it. The only thing modern fronsic science has been able to determin is that it has pollen, seeds, and plant particles from plants located in the proper areas from the proper timeframes. Including several extremely rare plants that are specific to those regions, specifically the bean caper (Zygophyllum dumosum), which is known to only grow in Israel, Jordon, and parts of Egypt. Other plants found were the Rock Rose (Cistus creticus) found through the Middle East, and the Goundelia tournefortii tumbleweed which is believed to have been the plant used to make the "crown of thorns". So this evidence shows that who or whatever made the shroud exposed it to those environments. Traces were also found of plants native to the area around Istambul (formerly Constantinople), where it was believed that the shroud stayed for many years for safe keeping. Think about it, forensic evidence such as this has not been even remotely considered back in the 1500's. Delibertly introducing such evidence onto the shroud by anyone attempting a forgery at that time would never ever have been someone's idea. It would be like us today placing an object in some type of specific electro-magnetic field because in 400 years from now we discover that you can pin-point to an exact date/time and location that an object was made by looking at some signature in its atom's fields (please note this last statment is clearly a madeup statment, but it is trying to point out that no one in that time would have introduced this type of evidence into making a forgery as it is evidence that was not even detectable in the time and thus, useless to the forger who simply wants to make some money/fame from his forgery, invisible evidence is no good to a person like this).
The former most probable and widely accepted version of how the shroud came into being was that it was painted for a rich French family during the renaissance period. The pollen evidence clearly disproves this theory along with the physical evidence that of the coloring on the shroud itself not meeting with any known way of painting only the outermost part of the fibers, where paint itself would be "wicked" up into the fibers and not remain on the outer edges.
Again, there are too many gaps in its history, and too many unanswered questions. But it is a testiment to its creator(s) that it has withstood forensic scientific tests and continutes to point to it being possibly authentic. Does this prove that it is the burial shroud of Jesus? No. But up until now, the only test that it has not withstood has been a carbon dating test which has been shown to have been flawed in its methods the last time it was preformed.
Also note:
(3) the term `central processing unit' includes a case and all of its contents, such as the primary printed circuit board and its components, additional printed circuit boards, one or more disc drives, a transformer, interior wire, and a power cord;
And:
(e) ADDITIONAL EXEMPTION- The Administrator may exempt from the requirement of a fee under this section any sale made under a contract or an arrangement that the Administrator determines is likely to result in the maximum reuse of significant components of the computer, monitor, or device, and the disposal of the remaining components--
(1) in an environmentally sound and responsible manner;
(2) without violation of any Federal or State law; and
(3) without reliance on funding from State or local governments,
when the computer, monitor, or device is no longer of use to the end-user.
(f) DESIGNATION OF ELECTRONIC DEVICES- The Administrator may designate additional electronic devices to which the fee under subsection (a) shall apply if those electronic devices--
(1) contain a significant amount of material that, when disposed of, would be hazardous waste; and
(2) include one or more liquid crystal displays, cathode ray tubes, or circuit boards.
So, basically right now, only full systems seem to be called "a computer" (i.e. your standard Dell/HP/Gateway, etc., pizza box/tower). But they reserve the right for parts to later be specified, basically anything with a circuit board or LCD.
Well, ok lets think about this logically. We already have several possible reasons for the inaccuracy of the carbon dating. This is just yet another look at the dating method used to show that is has flaws.
To me, the most blatent flaw is the know fact that the shroud has/had a bacterial infestation in its long history. Enough so that any dating method used would and should clean the cloth before attempting to date it, but it was not cleaned, and might not be possible to clean before dating. This new look wants to take samples from multiple places on the shroud, which makes much more sense knowing that there is contamination that will skew any and all results to a newer creation date (as the bacterial mass would was living on the shroud after its actual creation and thus have giving a possitive time shift to the data collected which still includes this added mass to the testing mass, the shroud fibers themselves, not the shroud and bacteria that is on the shroud.
There was a similar issue with the dead sea scrolls. But with those, a solution was found to get more accurate readings by measuring the age a one of the scrolls which had were dated and cross-referenced with other known sources to be known accurate to the particular dates/time frame, and compairing that result with the result found on the other scrolls. In those cases, there was a 200-300 year difference resolved. By compairing the resulting carbon date output range in those cases, it was found that the lowest possible number in the carbon dating was the true date. It was still within the margin of error of data in that particular case(s), but it was the extreme low end which was a 200-300 year shift from the nominal value of the range.
In the shroud's case, there is no other documentation found with the shroud, no other similar objects which have dates associated with them, at least not until the 16th century when it passed into the hands of the church. And thus no way to use the same methods used to date the dead sea scrolls in this case. What is known, is that there is contamination. How much is up for debate simply because more tests have not been performed, and because science does not want to expose the known flaws with carbon dating. I say known as they are known to scientists and intelligent people, but not known to the general public who have been lead to believe that it is the be-all-end-all method and that the results never lie, but when in reality, the results can easily be skewed to the possitive timeframe by contamination (this is why other objects that are dated try to use material that is not exposed to the direct elements, but this is not possible in this case).
All I am saying is that there are many known reasons for the dating to be skewed. Is it possible that the dating was skewed 1100 years or so, I do not know. It could be if the bacterial infestation was extrememly pervasive in the area from where the sample was taken.
Personnally, I believe that it may be a fake, but the fact that we have yet to prove it one way or the other keeps my mind open. The real question should be if it is a fake, how was it made? We still have yet to answer that. There is speculation that it was painted by an artist, but if that was the case, the paint should have been absorbed by the fibers and penetrated them, when the coloring is only on the extreme edges of the fibers. Another suggestion was that it was "burned" on by a massive bronze/iron statue being heated and the cloth being draped over the statue. This too has been disprooven as the photographic negative effect would not have been created with this method (emperical tests were done to test this and the resulting works did not withstand the photographic negative test). When after almost 700 years no one has been able to show how it was made, especially with all the advances in science and technology only showing how much more there is to the shroud, I keep a open mind that it could be authentic, but a skeptical mind given the nature of the time in which it came into existance...
I have had to learn perl, php, mysql, java, javascript/html, C/C++, oracle, ingres, and shell scripting. I get to play on beowulf clusters. I work for a Fortune 500 Co, and I get to do all the fun things there are to being a Systems Administrator, and am paid more then 2x the prive you quoted. I did work my way up a little, but there is a learning curve at any new system/network layout before you really know what is going on. If you truely know what you are doing, you should quickly be able to pickup the new setup within 3 months. You already know how to do things, and any possition you accept should be aware of that fact and place you accordingly. Any decent company want to use their assets (i.e. "you") to their fullest capability, they are paying you for that, so they want to get the most out of you. If you really know what to do, they won't want to waste you doing mundain tasks when you could be solving why system X freezes when user XYZ starts a certain process, but doesn't freeze when user ZYX starts the same process, or need to configure 20 new nodes to add into the beowulf cluster and "test" them ;)
Dude, you need to move. Seriously. You should be making 2 times that, more so since you are a linux admin.
Comcast themselves had no idea that this would happen, and even failed to believe that the problem was on their end. People had been calling customer service for the first two weeks of the new year (Comcast made the switchover on Jan 1st), and were reporting general problems. The biggest problem was the fact that the changeover also affected just about every major DNS server Comcast had in existance, which were then also dropping packets as well. This added about a 5 second delay to most customers, in addition to the other problems occuring.
So, we have customer systems dropping packets, and Comcast servers dropping packets, and adding the two together created huge usability issues across the entire network. But Comcast still refused to take responsibility for the problems in the early weeks, with the goal being to clear up the customer service lines as opposed to take problems down. Comcast has finally appeared to fix some of the issues within the last week by sending out upgraded software to customer cable modem boxes. I still believe they are having DNS issues (but then again, when is Comcast NOT having DNS issues), but I do not know as I stopped using their DNS servers 3 years ago due to how unreliable their DNS servers are (they were failing at least 2 times a week for at least 1 day at a time).
In anycase, there has been speculation that there will be a price increase in 6 months timeframe, but this may not happen now. Origionally, the speed increase was going to coincide with a $5-$10 price increase as well, but that plan was dropped when news was leaked to customers. There was also supposed to be another $5 increase in 6 months, but that too may be dropped now as well. The other huge backlash Comcast is recieving is for removing unlimited newsgroup access for the former AT&T customers, who were origionally told at the time of the Comcast buyout that no loss of current service would occur, which was also a condition of the buyout/merger. Comcast's normal customers already had lost unlimited newsgroup access when Comcast took over the @HOME network in certain areas several years ago, and limited users to 1 gig a month newsgroup access. That limit was increased to 2 gigs a month Jan 1st at the same time they dropped support for the unlimited access for the former AT&T customers (in an atempt to appease them).
I for one can not wait until Verizon brings fiber to the home. I live in one of the lucky few test/rollout states (NJ) which will begin to recieve service during this year. Comcast is going to have some serious problems when that occurs, as the initial pricing is actually cheaper then Comcast's normal cable modem service, and is faster then Comcast's premium 6mbps service, with much less restrictions (i.e. Verizon does not care how you use it, as long as it is legal, so servers for web, email, ftp, etc., are all allowed, and unlimited newsgroups service is included).
Also, the article is a little dated in terms of what it talks about. Especially with the "... the consumer versions of which are limited to about 42 inches" which is VERY out of date. 50" plasmas are very available, and even affordable. 45" and 46" LCD's are available, but are scarse due to high demand (especially for the 45" Sharp). Sharp supposedly has a 65" and 70" LCD comming out in the next generation due in about 4-6 months. There are 70" and 80" plasma's being worked on with higher resolution. And these are all consumer level products, which do not include the industrial versions as well as the other large industrial panels that are available as well, many of which offer better quality as the CQ is much more intense (i.e. no dead pixel policies, longer warrenties)
Yeah that and it might fit an entire song (as long as it was not encoded at 320kbps).
Lets just look at this from a market point of view. Did your market (customers who would "need" your product) shrink, grow, or stay the same over the last 5 years? If it shrank, well, guess what, that is why no one is buying it anymore. If it stayed the same, well, that too is why no one is buying it anymore (they already bought your product, there is no need for them to buy it again!). If it grew, then, how much did it grow? Who are your customers? What are their current financial issues (we are still in a recession and as a result spending is still being cut). How important is this product to your customer's business? If it is not EXTREMELY important, then it will have been cut.
Competitors? Do you have any new ones? Are there now open source products that do the same thing as your product? Are there other solutions by other companies that do the same thing as your product? Are the features that other competting products have that your product does not?
Innovate? Are you still innovating? If you are not creating new things that are truely must have, then customers are simply going to not buy it, and the ones who have already bought it will have no reason to upgrade (are you even upgrading your product?).
Is your product really a magic money printing press? Did you truely believe that people will pay whatever you want for your product and that they would continue doing so indefinetly? How do you know this is a "must have" product that everyone needs and no one else can supply? Five years is an extremely long time for a software solution to some problem. A LOT changes in five years. How do you know that it is because people are copying your product that you are making less money now then five years ago? The reason Microsoft continues to make money is because they have a whole new product every 2-3 years.
Do yourself a favor and get some true market annalysis done before saying that such-and-such is the reason I am not making as much money this year off this product as I did five years ago for the same product.